IP Cases — 2023
1,360 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 46 · 1,360 total
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies(India) Limited
The court heard an application filed by the defendant (Intex) seeking modification of existing interim royalty rates. The court dismissed this application, noting that the defendant was straining to avoid complying with prior directions for royalty payments. Separately, the court disposed of an application concerning the reconstitution of a confidentiality club.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd v.Shahid Ahmad Mir
In a significant resolution for the pharmaceutical sector, Zydus Healthcare Ltd successfully concluded its dispute with Shahid Ahmad Mir through a comprehensive settlement decree. The parties agreed that Defendant would cease all use of marks or packaging deceptively similar to 'PROTIMED.' Crucially, the defendant formally transferred all rights and goodwill associated with the registered trademark 'PROTIMED' (No. 2159273) to Zydus for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000, effectively resolving the infringement claim.
Wrangler Apparel Corporation v.H.S. Kishori Lal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a request to stay a trademark infringement suit while separate rectification petitions questioning the validity of the trademarks were pending. Citing recent legal precedents, particularly following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the court ruled that there is no need to stay the civil suit. Instead, it ordered the consolidation of the main suit and all related rectification petitions to be tried together before the High Court.
Tibra Collection v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Tibra Collection filed suit against several unauthorized sellers operating on the Meesho platform (run by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited) for copyright infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were selling counterfeit garments that copied their designs and misusing their copyrighted photographs. After initial interim injunctions, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit against the infringing sellers (Defendants 2-6), formalizing the undertaking which included a payment of Rs. 10 lakh to Tibra Collection and permanent cessation of all infringing activities.
Burger King Company Llc v.Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong protection afforded to the 'BURGER KING' trademark, declaring it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act. The court relied on Burger King's extensive global presence, long history (since 1954), massive promotional spending, and established secondary meaning in India. This judgment reinforces that globally recognized brands can secure enhanced legal protection against unauthorized use by local operators.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The Chinese University of Hong Kong filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently moved for withdrawal of the appeal.
Bidisha Ghoshal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Bidisha Ghoshal appealed the rejection of her trademark application '42 orchids' by The Registrar of Trade Marks, arguing that the Examiner's refusal was mechanical and lacked sufficient reasoning. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and devoid of substantive discussion regarding similarity or likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the authorities for a fresh examination, ensuring due process.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).
Fdc India (Franchise Development Consulting India) v.FDC Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed the amendment of a plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff was correcting a mere factual error—mistakenly stating pending trademarks as registered—or making a substantive change. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld the legality of allowing the amendment but simultaneously balanced the equities by directing that the specific details provided in the amended plaint regarding the nature and status of the marks must be considered when deciding related applications like perjury pleas or stay vacation.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802). The rejection was based on alleged failures regarding proper method claim submission and procedural delays concerning Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds were untenable and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its divisional patent application (8584/DELNP/2007). The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. However, the court disposed of the appeal because the term of the parent patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Green Cross Holdings Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Green Cross Holdings Corporation appealed the order dated 02.02.2023 by the Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application for a method of preparing Plasma-derived Hepatitis B Human Immunoglobulin Agent. The appellant argued that all objections were addressed, but the rejection was arbitrary. The High Court found that the respondent failed to discuss the prior arts or provide justifiable reasons for rejecting the inventive step.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing Indian Patent No. 426553, which covers a combination therapy (Netupitant and Palonosetron) used as an antiemetic for CINV. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed both parties to file their respective written statements and pleadings.
Jaisica International v.The Registrar of Trade Marks; Crystal Cook-N-Serve Products Pvt. Ltd.
Jaisica International filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order of abandonment concerning its device mark 'KRYSTAL'. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the case, the appellant voluntarily chose to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the matter as withdrawn without passing any substantive orders regarding costs.
M/S Liberty Footwear Company v.M/S Liberty International
This case involved a suit filed by M/S Liberty Footwear Company against M/S Liberty International, alleging unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'LIBERTY' in the footwear sector. The core dispute centered on whether the claims of trademark infringement could be subjected to arbitration as stipulated in an underlying Partnership Deed. The court ultimately allowed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referring the parties to arbitration.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. v.Ena Universal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.
Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd v.Bal Kishan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark (No. 5320418) registered by Bal Kishan. The petitioner argued that its established mark 'ACKO' for insurance services was being infringed upon by the respondent's mark 'ACKOLITE' in Class 11 (household appliances). Given the likelihood of confusion and Acko's strong prior rights, the Court cancelled the impugned registration, reinforcing the principle against conflicting marks.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Pradeep Kumar Singh and Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Pradeep Kumar Singh and others. The Plaintiff, proprietor of the well-known 'KHADI' trademark, successfully argued that the Defendants were deceptively using the mark 'ISOBEL KHADI GLOBAL' to ride on its goodwill. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, restraining the Defendants from using the impugned mark and maintaining the status quo on their website until further hearing.
Vinit Dua v.Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Vinit Dua, to register his trademark infringement claim against Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors. The court found that a prima facie case of infringement was made out because the defendant's mark, 'AFFINITY ELEVE,' is highly likely to deceive customers into associating it with the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AF FINITY.' Consequently, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar mark while the suit proceeds.
Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad v.The Registrar of Trademark
The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'GRAMA BAZAAR' (Application No. 3589530). The appellant successfully argued that because the mark is a device mark applied to services (operating as a marketplace), it should not be subject to the same conflicts as existing word marks registered for goods in different classes. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement, while imposing a limitation preventing the appellant from claiming exclusive rights over the words 'GRAMA' or 'BAZAAR'.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.
M/s.Ufo Moviez India Ltd. v.M/s Real Image Media Technologies Pvt.Ltd
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 202980. The court observed that the term of this patent had expired on October 18, 2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
The Managing Director and Appellate Authority, Tasmac v.M.Loganathan
Tasmac appealed an interim order from the Single Judge, which directed them to provide certain commercially sensitive information regarding liquor purchasing rates in a sealed cover. Tasmac argued that this information constituted trade secrets protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Chardikla Accessories & Ors.
In the ongoing trademark dispute between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Chardikla Accessories, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 24, 2023. The court noted that Defendant No. 4 expressed a willingness to settle the matter, similar to Defendants No. 1 through 3. Consequently, the case was listed for further proceedings and settlement discussions on April 6, 2023.
Ajay Panwar v.Kishore Chhabra
The appeal involved a request by Ajay Panwar (appellant/defendant No. 2) to stay the execution of an earlier judgment restraining him from using specific machinery. The respondent claimed patent rights over the machinery and copyright protection for drawings related thereto.
Bennett Coleman And Companylimited v.E Entertainment Television Llc And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing rejoinders in trademark cancellation proceedings. The court allowed the delays, allowing the petitioner to file their responses. Furthermore, the court framed specific issues regarding the potential cancellation of two distinct trademarks (No. 2340887 and No. 1252812) and set a clear schedule for the parties to proceed with evidence and trial.
Surender Kumar v.The Registrar Of Trademakrs
The Delhi High Court allowed Surender Kumar's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to refuse registration for the mark 'CANON'. The court found that the Senior Examiner erred by disregarding a prior settlement decree, which explicitly permitted the use and registration of 'CANON' for the services applied for. Furthermore, the court dismissed objections regarding user date requirements as they were introduced after the application was filed. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Registry was directed to proceed with the mark's advertisement and registration.
Usha International Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr.
Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.
Mr. Syedmohideen v.Ms.B.SulochanaBai
The Madras High Court addressed the petition filed by Mr. Syedmohideen seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, IRUTTUKADAI. The petitioner had sought to challenge the registration of this mark held by Ms. B. Sulochana Bai. However, before any substantive hearing took place, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he intended to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed (T)OP(TM).No.118 of 2023 as withdrawn.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.